(09-12-2012 04:12 AM)bemore Wrote: I believe that almost all animals are sentinent. Can I prove it scientifically??? Unfortunately not.... what I base my beliefs on is my observations.

Owning different pets I see that they have personalities of their own. The amount of dogs I have seen asleep, who bark and twitch and dream, who then wake up and look around like WTF.

I recognise fear in animals eyes, just like I recognise fear in peoples eyes.

As a species we are very arrogant.

I have no doubt that animals are all intelligent and sentient. That being said, I have no problem with eating the ones that reproduce quickly. Just like I would not take it personally if aliens came to earth with the intent to eat humans. I would of course fight back with the hope that they go somewhere else.

(08-12-2012 05:49 PM)FZUMedia Wrote: I'm a vegan, but I am not fuddy duddy about it.

Obviously killing an animal is not the same as killing a human, but it's still not a good thing if you can help it. I think all meat eaters should go out and go hunting every now and then to gain an appreciation of were meat comes from, and the process the animal has to go through. I couldn't kill a cow, so I don't think I should be eating it. I couldn't hit someone, so I don't think I should be in boxing. It's very simple.

First of all: Why is killing a human different to any other animal?
Secondly: If you insist, we could become snake or spider like and fill our prey species with paralyzing poison to prevent the feeling pain...

Biology, humans are social animals and are naturally inclined to prioritise their own kin. I'm sure there is a scientific explanation, but it's instinctual none the less. I am sure it is to do with intelligence, we don't hold funerals for a moth, but we hold funerals and more respect for cats, dogs and any semi intelligent creature. I don't think that will change any time soon.

Plus I don't think the animal in question cares how or why it's being killed, only that it's being killed. If I said I was going to kill you with blunt tools or sedate you and kill you in your sleep- you'd 180 and run away from me either way.

(08-12-2012 11:11 PM)Free Thought Wrote: First of all: Why is killing a human different to any other animal?
Secondly: If you insist, we could become snake or spider like and fill our prey species with paralyzing poison to prevent the feeling pain...

Biology, humans are social animals and are naturally inclined to prioritise their own kin. I'm sure there is a scientific explanation, but it's instinctual none the less. I am sure it is to do with intelligence, we don't hold funerals for a moth, but we hold funerals and more respect for cats, dogs and any semi intelligent creature. I don't think that will change any time soon.

Plus I don't think the animal in question cares how or why it's being killed, only that it's being killed. If I said I was going to kill you with blunt tools or sedate you and kill you in your sleep- you'd 180 and run away from me either way.

The first part is pretty simple. Humans are for the most part highly empathetic creatures, like most mammalian species, and we share empathy with other mammals like cats and dogs who tend to be highly empathetic and social themselves which is why people like pet cats or dogs more than, lets say an axolotl or moths which don't seem to be able to express such emotion.
It has nothing to do with intelligence, it's the make up of the brain and likely came as a consequence of developing as a social group based species. (It also causes our somewhat annoying behaviour of anthropomorphizing other species.)

Good point, but you seem to be being overly empathetic toward animals and mixing survival instinct which active thought and awareness of death.

However, the consumption of other animals has been and always will be necessary for the survival of carnivorous and omnivorous (tending toward carnivorous) species, and we tend toward the carnivorous side of the scale here at our current stage (granted. long before the human line our ancestors tended toward the herbivorous side of things and thus we still carry some of those traits, giving us our omnivorous capability). It is the way things work with or without humans anthropomorphizing everything; creatures must die so that others may live, humans are no exception.

Also, your hypothetical is based on the assumption that I've only one survival recourse, when I've got more than just flight. And that I am aware of life and death.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.

(09-12-2012 05:42 AM)FZUMedia Wrote: Biology, humans are social animals and are naturally inclined to prioritise their own kin. I'm sure there is a scientific explanation, but it's instinctual none the less. I am sure it is to do with intelligence, we don't hold funerals for a moth, but we hold funerals and more respect for cats, dogs and any semi intelligent creature. I don't think that will change any time soon.

Plus I don't think the animal in question cares how or why it's being killed, only that it's being killed. If I said I was going to kill you with blunt tools or sedate you and kill you in your sleep- you'd 180 and run away from me either way.

The first part is pretty simple. Humans are for the most part highly empathetic creatures, like most mammalian species, and we share empathy with other mammals like cats and dogs who tend to be highly empathetic and social themselves which is why people like pet cats or dogs more than, lets say an axolotl or moths which don't seem to be able to express such emotion.
It has nothing to do with intelligence, it's the make up of the brain and likely came as a consequence of developing as a social group based species. (It also causes our somewhat annoying behaviour of anthropomorphizing other species.)

Good point, but you seem to be being overly empathetic toward animals and mixing survival instinct which active thought and awareness of death.

However, the consumption of other animals has been and always will be necessary for the survival of carnivorous and omnivorous (tending toward carnivorous) species, and we tend toward the carnivorous side of the scale here at our current stage (granted. long before the human line our ancestors tended toward the herbivorous side of things and thus we still carry some of those traits, giving us our omnivorous capability). It is the way things work with or without humans anthropomorphizing everything; creatures must die so that others may live, humans are no exception.

Also, your hypothetical is based on the assumption that I've only one survival recourse, when I've got more than just flight. And that I am aware of life and death.

If humans are naturally omnivores, why do we need to remove blood from meat, cook it, then flavour it so that even then, it digests in 2-3 days? otherwise we are likely to get food poisoning from a raw version of the meat. No other omnivore does that, omnivores love blood, guts and everything in between, we try to make meat not like meat by heavily altering it for consumption. Whereas you can pick a banana from a tree and eat it and it will digest within 24 hours. So the latter option is more unnatural for humans?

(09-12-2012 06:50 AM)FZUMedia Wrote: If humans are naturally omnivores, why do we need to remove blood from meat, cook it, then flavour it so that even then, it digests in 2-3 days? otherwise we are likely to get food poisoning from a raw version of the meat. No other omnivore does that, omnivores love blood, guts and everything in between, we try to make meat not like meat by heavily altering it for consumption. Whereas you can pick a banana from a tree and eat it and it will digest within 24 hours. So the latter option is more unnatural for humans?

This is true..... however no other omnivores have evolved in the way we have.

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

(09-12-2012 06:45 AM)Free Thought Wrote: The first part is pretty simple. Humans are for the most part highly empathetic creatures, like most mammalian species, and we share empathy with other mammals like cats and dogs who tend to be highly empathetic and social themselves which is why people like pet cats or dogs more than, lets say an axolotl or moths which don't seem to be able to express such emotion.
It has nothing to do with intelligence, it's the make up of the brain and likely came as a consequence of developing as a social group based species. (It also causes our somewhat annoying behaviour of anthropomorphizing other species.)

Good point, but you seem to be being overly empathetic toward animals and mixing survival instinct which active thought and awareness of death.

However, the consumption of other animals has been and always will be necessary for the survival of carnivorous and omnivorous (tending toward carnivorous) species, and we tend toward the carnivorous side of the scale here at our current stage (granted. long before the human line our ancestors tended toward the herbivorous side of things and thus we still carry some of those traits, giving us our omnivorous capability). It is the way things work with or without humans anthropomorphizing everything; creatures must die so that others may live, humans are no exception.

Also, your hypothetical is based on the assumption that I've only one survival recourse, when I've got more than just flight. And that I am aware of life and death.

If humans are naturally omnivores, why do we need to remove blood from meat, cook it, then flavour it so that even then, it digests in 2-3 days, otherwise we are likely to get food poisoning. Whereas you can pick a banana from a tree and eat it, it will digest within 24 hours?

Human ancestors developed eating meat as a food source long before the cultivation of the modern banana, or cooking methods.
Species ancestral to humans such as those within the Australopithecus genus (from which Homo originated) ate widely varying diets including both meat and fruits, early Homo species shifted and became more meat inclined (likely due to climate changes and other dietary restricting changes), while still holding on to both sides of diet.
Modern Humans can easily consume raw meats without prior preparation; food poisoning comes from bacteria not digestive disagreement, most people flavour their meat to make it more appealing and better tasting, simple as that.

Also the banana you can take off a tree these days is likely one of the varieties that were selectively grown and produced to suit the human palette, rather that their practically inedible ancestors.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.

(09-12-2012 06:50 AM)FZUMedia Wrote: If humans are naturally omnivores, why do we need to remove blood from meat, cook it, then flavour it so that even then, it digests in 2-3 days, otherwise we are likely to get food poisoning. Whereas you can pick a banana from a tree and eat it, it will digest within 24 hours?

Human ancestors developed eating meat as a food source long before the cultivation of the modern banana, or cooking methods.
Species ancestral to humans such as those within the Australopithecus genus (from which Homo originated) ate widely varying diets including both meat and fruits, early Homo species shifted and became more meat inclined (likely due to climate changes and other dietary restricting changes), while still holding on to both sides of diet.
Modern Humans can easily consume raw meats without prior preparation; food poisoning comes from bacteria not digestive disagreement, most people flavour their meat to make it more appealing and better tasting, simple as that.

Also the banana you can take off a tree these days is likely one of the varieties that were selectively grown and produced to suit the human palette, rather that their practically inedible ancestors.

But from what I have read, 98% of an ape's diet is ruffage/fruit - 2% comes from insects. It is our closest ancestor, and they have almost an identical digestive system to ours.

(09-12-2012 07:33 AM)Free Thought Wrote: Human ancestors developed eating meat as a food source long before the cultivation of the modern banana, or cooking methods.
Species ancestral to humans such as those within the Australopithecus genus (from which Homo originated) ate widely varying diets including both meat and fruits, early Homo species shifted and became more meat inclined (likely due to climate changes and other dietary restricting changes), while still holding on to both sides of diet.
Modern Humans can easily consume raw meats without prior preparation; food poisoning comes from bacteria not digestive disagreement, most people flavour their meat to make it more appealing and better tasting, simple as that.

Also the banana you can take off a tree these days is likely one of the varieties that were selectively grown and produced to suit the human palette, rather that their practically inedible ancestors.

But from what I have read, 98% of an ape's diet is ruffage/fruit - 2% comes from insects. It is our closest ancestor, and they have almost an identical digestive system to ours.

There were multiple species of hominids, you know that right? And Chimpanzees, our closest ancestor, are also omnivores, and frequently eat small birds when there is a lack of vegetation.